[EAS] Should the RWT EAS Code be abolished?

[Tom Spencer]

The one reason to retain the RWT at the local, end-user station is to 
verify that the endec is properly connected and will, in fact, interrupt 
programming should the unit receive an actual alert.

The RMT or whatever test from the next level up (LP1, LP2, NWS, etc.) 
should not be the only test that the end-user stations' equipment is 
properly connected and functioning, although it does add the next layer 
of testing - that the receiver and decoder sections are also operating 
properly.

So, what we should have, and we do come close to that now, is:

weekly test at the local level to insure and verify that the endec is 
connected (hasn't been patched out, for example) and operating

bi-weekly or monthly test of the entire local area's alerting 
capability.  For maximum effective testing, I'd agree that this test 
probably should originate at the local emergency management agency level 
and/or NOAA.

Monthly or quarterly test at the state level.  This test would be to 
determine that any interconnectivity between local areas is functioning, 
as well as testing the capability of wide-area alerts, such as AMBER 
alerts and so forth.

Quarterly or semi-annual testing of the whole enchilada, from FEMA/White 
House on down. 

These tests would be in addition to any more frequent closed-circuit 
testing of all or part of the system off-air.

And I did think of a few reasons to do an EAN besides nuclear attack:

Space weather.  Solar flares of sufficient magnitude to have the 
potential to disrupt all or part of the power and/or communications 
infrastructure, for example.

Asteroid strike imminent.

Others:  Multi-state pending disasters beyond the typical weather 
events, such as hurricane warnings (local or state level alerting).  Not 
sure what those might be, offhand, but I'm sure that there are reasons 
for a regional (more than one state) alerting protocol, even if the 
event is already coded.

Oh.  A reason for a local station to initiate an EAS event - at the 
behest of local authorities (sheriff, mayor, etc.), especially in areas 
where there IS only one or two stations... which I believe was the 
intent of the CIV code, in part.

The fact that there are very few AM/FM receivers that have SAME decoders 
built in isn't the fault of the EAS.  And the fact that many NOAA 
All-Hazards radio receivers DO have SAME decoders indicates that it 
could be done, inexpensively...

And if AM/FM radios were to include SAME decoding, that'd be another 
reason for end-users to run weekly tests....

Bill Ruck wrote:
> My 2 cents worth.
>
> Absolutely the RWT should be abolished.  It is nothing more than an 
> artifact of the CONELRAD system when local operators were on duty 
> 24x7.  Today the RWT has absolutely no meaning.  The air staff (if 
> and when there might be somebody on duty) goes through a procedure to 
> meet a federal mandated requirement.  If you have your system set up 
> for automatic RWT you only comply with the federal requirement.  It 
> means nothing.
>
> Since any TV or radio station should not initiate a EAS event by 
> themselves it is much more important to get the local OES/EMS 
> involved.  My experience in the past was not very supportive.  And my 
> expectation is that with today's budgets there is fewer people left 
> in OES/EMS.  Local (city and county) agencies are much closer to the 
> people than state and federal agencies.  Like politics, emergencies 
> are _LOCAL_.  The NWS recognizes this.  Why can't the feds?
>
> Were I made Emperor For Life the RMT would be mandated to be 
> originated by local agencies and carried by all stations and carried 
> by all other media like cell phones and personal communication 
> devices.  Even the Internet!   There would be funding for this 
> purpose.  This would be a meaningful test.
>
> And were I made Emperor For Life the NPT would be mandated to be 
> originated by Feeble or the White House every quarter.  And combine 
> the two into a national RMT once or twice a year.
>
> All tests would be monitored and reports filed.  Discrepancies would 
> be followed up and fixed.
>
> Just because once upon a time CONELRAD and EBS started precedent does 
> not mean that it should be followed today.  Make all system testing 
> relevant.  Practice makes perfect.
>
> The people in the United States deserve nothing less than prompt 
> accurate emergency public information.
>
> Bill Ruck
> Curmudgeon
> San Francisco
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
>
> Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>
> And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net
>
>   

-- 
Tom Spencer